Issues in Public and Nonprofit Administration

Executive Order: Travel Ban

Executive Orders are “a rule or order issued by the President to an Executive Branch of the government and having the force of law” and “an order issued by a government’s executive on the basis of authority specifically granted to the Executive Branch (as by the U.S. Constitution or a congressional act.)” (“Executive Order,” n.d.). These orders tend to come under some levels of criticism or scrutiny. President Trump recently signed into effect a travel ban, resulting in heavy criticism and controversy by members of the House, Senate, foreign leaders, civil rights groups, media outlets, and your everyday citizens. However, there is heavy confusion on what this travel ban does and as to why certain countries where not included. I will be exploring what this travel ban is, some of the arguments against this travel ban, and provide a brief personal outlook into how I feel about this ordeal.

The Travel Ban was signed into effect by President Trump on January 27, 2017. The ban immediately halted travel of citizens from the following countries: Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, from entering the United States for the next 90 days and stops the admission of any and all refugees into the United States for 120 days. However, the order has indefinitely ban refugees from the country of Syria, a country plague by the jihadist terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) or known as Daesh in Arabic. However, included within this where also those who are permanent U.S. residents that are green-card holders. Green-card holders have since been allowed back into the United States after much confusion.

So, where does all of the current controversy come from? There are multiple sides that the opponents of the Travel Ban are expressing. Some are expressing that this is a ban on Muslims, due to President Trump’s hinted comment on prioritizing Christian refugees from Syria, and that the countries on this ban have a Muslim majority. This, in-turn, has caused a spiraling level of media frenzy and protest around the world. Opponents say that this ban would be a direct violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows the Freedom of Religion. United States Federal Judge Ann M. Donnelly was quoted saying the Travel Ban “violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution.” (Zurcher, 2017). However, other opponents have pointed out that the countries of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Lebanon should also be on this Travel Ban list, due to the hijackers of the September 11th Terrorist attacks on the United States being of these country’s nationalities. Furthermore, others have called into question if there is a conflict of interest, due to President Trump’s business operations in those four countries excluded from the list. (Neier, 2017). Bob Ferguson, the Attorney General of Washington State, announced on January 30th that he will be “filing a lawsuit in federal court against President Trump, the Federal Department of Homeland Security, and high-ranking Trump Administration Officials.” (Rampton, 2017).

Foreign leaders are also criticizing the Travel Ban. NATO Allies France, Germany, Turkey, and Britain have all weighted in on this issue, condemning the ban. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson tweeted the ban was “wrong.” French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault stated that “discrimination is not an answer.” Chancellor Angela Merkel took a more direct approach in voicing her concerns, reminding the President of the obligations listed within the Geneva Convention on refugees. According to the UNHCR, “the core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom.” (“The 1951 Refugee Convention,” n.d.). Deputy Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek of Turkey took to Twitter to mock the Travel ban tweeting: “We’d happily welcome global talent not allowed back into #USA.” (Ansari, 2017).

My stance on the Travel Ban comes from our core American values. During the very beginnings of our nation, there was the belief of the freedom from persecution for your religious beliefs. The right to live freely and safely. The right to not be afraid. How can we, a nation that prides itself on freedom, turn our backs on the innocent victims of a war against terrorism, a war we are involved in. How can we sit idly by and subject others to live in fear or by turning them away, send them directly back into the jaws of a wolf. How can we, a country of immigrants turn away others wanting a better and brighter future? While I understand the need for better security checks, is there a better way we could do it? I do not agree with the Travel Ban. I do not agree with leaving Syria refugees to the subjection of ISIS. I understand what President Trump wanted, but this ban was not the correct way of going about it. This is not something that should have come about so easily. It needed much more organization and forethought before proceeding. Hopefully in the coming days, the White House will clear up the confusion currently abound and provide those suffering some form of assistance.